Carotid Wallstent Versus Roadsaver Stent and Distal Versus Proximal Protection on Cerebral Microembolization During Carotid Artery Stenting.
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Carotid Stenosis
/ complications
Cerebrovascular Circulation
Embolic Protection Devices
Endovascular Procedures
/ adverse effects
Female
Humans
Intracranial Embolism
/ diagnostic imaging
Italy
Male
Middle Aged
Prosthesis Design
Risk Factors
Stents
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
Ultrasonography, Doppler, Transcranial
Vascular Patency
double-mesh carotid stent
microembolic signals
proximal protection
transcranial Doppler
Journal
JACC. Cardiovascular interventions
ISSN: 1876-7605
Titre abrégé: JACC Cardiovasc Interv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101467004
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 02 2020
24 02 2020
Historique:
received:
02
07
2019
revised:
14
08
2019
accepted:
04
09
2019
pubmed:
3
2
2020
medline:
29
9
2020
entrez:
3
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to randomly compare the double-layer Roadsaver stent (RS) (Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) with the single-layer Carotid Wallstent (CW) (Boston Scientific, Santa Clara, California) in association with either distal embolic protection with the FilterWire (FW) device (Boston Scientific) or proximal protection with the Mo.Ma Ultra device (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, California) in patients with lipid-rich carotid plaques. The role of both stent type and brain protection during carotid artery stenting (CAS) remains unsettled. A total of 104 consecutive patients with carotid artery stenosis were randomized to CAS with FW + RS (group 1, n = 27), FW + CW (group 2, n = 25), Mo.Ma + RS (group 3, n = 27), or Mo.Ma + CW (group 4, n = 25). The primary endpoint was the number of microembolic signals (MES) on transcranial Doppler among groups in the following CAS steps: 1 and 2) target vessel access; 3) lesion wiring; 4) pre-dilation; 5) stent crossing; 6) stent deployment; 7) stent dilation; and 8) device retrieval and deflation. No significant differences in baseline characteristics were found among the 4 groups. Compared with the FW device, the Mo.Ma Ultra device significantly reduced mean MES count (p < 0.0001) during lesion crossing, stent crossing, stent deployment, and post-dilation. Compared with the CW, the RS significantly reduced MES count (p = 0.016) in steps 6 to 8, including spontaneous MES (29% of patients). The combination of Mo.Ma + RS performed significantly better than Mo.Ma + CW (p = 0.043). Clinical major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events occurred in 3 patients (p = 0.51). After CAS, peak systolic velocity significantly decreased in all patients. In-stent restenosis developed in 1 patient (0.98%) at 6-month follow-up. The RS was an independent predictor of external carotid artery patency over time. In patients with high-risk, lipid-rich plaque undergoing CAS, Mo.Ma + RS led to the lowest microembolic signals count. (Role of the Type of Carotid Stent and Cerebral Protection on Cerebral Microembolization During Carotid Artery Stenting. A Randomized Study Comparing Carotid Wallstent vs Roadsaver® Stent and Distal vs Proximal Protection; NCT02915328).
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to randomly compare the double-layer Roadsaver stent (RS) (Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) with the single-layer Carotid Wallstent (CW) (Boston Scientific, Santa Clara, California) in association with either distal embolic protection with the FilterWire (FW) device (Boston Scientific) or proximal protection with the Mo.Ma Ultra device (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, California) in patients with lipid-rich carotid plaques.
BACKGROUND
The role of both stent type and brain protection during carotid artery stenting (CAS) remains unsettled.
METHODS
A total of 104 consecutive patients with carotid artery stenosis were randomized to CAS with FW + RS (group 1, n = 27), FW + CW (group 2, n = 25), Mo.Ma + RS (group 3, n = 27), or Mo.Ma + CW (group 4, n = 25). The primary endpoint was the number of microembolic signals (MES) on transcranial Doppler among groups in the following CAS steps: 1 and 2) target vessel access; 3) lesion wiring; 4) pre-dilation; 5) stent crossing; 6) stent deployment; 7) stent dilation; and 8) device retrieval and deflation.
RESULTS
No significant differences in baseline characteristics were found among the 4 groups. Compared with the FW device, the Mo.Ma Ultra device significantly reduced mean MES count (p < 0.0001) during lesion crossing, stent crossing, stent deployment, and post-dilation. Compared with the CW, the RS significantly reduced MES count (p = 0.016) in steps 6 to 8, including spontaneous MES (29% of patients). The combination of Mo.Ma + RS performed significantly better than Mo.Ma + CW (p = 0.043). Clinical major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events occurred in 3 patients (p = 0.51). After CAS, peak systolic velocity significantly decreased in all patients. In-stent restenosis developed in 1 patient (0.98%) at 6-month follow-up. The RS was an independent predictor of external carotid artery patency over time.
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with high-risk, lipid-rich plaque undergoing CAS, Mo.Ma + RS led to the lowest microembolic signals count. (Role of the Type of Carotid Stent and Cerebral Protection on Cerebral Microembolization During Carotid Artery Stenting. A Randomized Study Comparing Carotid Wallstent vs Roadsaver® Stent and Distal vs Proximal Protection; NCT02915328).
Identifiants
pubmed: 32007460
pii: S1936-8798(19)31930-2
doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2019.09.007
pii:
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02915328']
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
403-414Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.